Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
~upreme ~ourt
:manila
EN BANC
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
"G.R. No. 217910 - Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III, etitioner vs. Civil
Registrar General, respondent, LGBTS Christian Chor h, Inc., Reverend
Crescencio "Ceejay" Agbayani, Jr., Marlon Felipe, and M ria Arlyn "Sugar"
Ibanez, petitioners-in-intervention, Attys. Fernando P. erito, Ronaldo T.
Reyes, Jeremy I. Gatdula, Cristina A. Montes, and Ru 1no Policarpio III,
intervenors)-
For his acts during the preliminary conference for the June 19, 2018 Oral
Arguments of this case, Atty. Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III (Atty. Falcis) is held
liable for direct contempt of this Court.
At the start of the preliminary conference, Atty. Falcis failed to rise and
manifest his presence when appearances for petitioner and petitioners-in-
intervention were called. He also failed to rise during the initial round of
questioning by the Justices. When responding to them, he failed to address them in
keeping with customary courtesies. Throughout the proceedings, he acted as
though he was unprepared and without knowledge of the decorum typical to
appearing in court. Atty. Falcis attempted to explain that he had contracted the
services of outside counsel to appear in collaboration with him, but was hard put to
specifically name a lawyer or a law firm. The law firm he subsequently 1
Rollo, pp. 236-239.
Id. at 257-258, Preliminary Conference Order.
Notice of Resolution -2- G.R. No. 217910
July 3, 2018
Atty. Falcis was attired in "a casual jacket, cropped jeans, and loafers
without socks. " 4 When questioned by Associate Justice Leonen why he was so
attired, he claimed that he had attended a meeting with advocates in Makati earlier
that day. He was attired in such a manner despite notice as early as March that he
was scheduled to appear before this Court.
On June 6, 2018, Atty. Falcis filed his Compliance (Re: Decorum During the
Preliminary Conference), 6 where he apologized for his poor decorum and
appearance during the preliminary conference. He explained that he had engaged
MOSVELDTT to assist him in the oral arguments. However, due to
miscommunication with the handling lawyer, Atty. Darwin Angeles,
MOSVELDTT was unable to file its entry of appearance in time for June 5, 2018.
Thus, as the only counsel on record, Atty. Falcis recognized that he should be the
one to attend the preliminary conference. He only realized that he was
underdressed for the preliminary conference when he entered the Session Hall, by
which time it was too late for him to change into a more appropriate attire. 7
Lawyers must serve their clients with competence and diligence. Under
Rule 18.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, "[a] lawyer shall not handle
any legal matter without adequate preparation." Atty. Falcis' appearance and
behavior during the preliminary conference reveal the inadequacy of his
preparation. Considering that the Advisory for Oral Arguments was served on the
parties three (3) months prior to the preliminary conference, it was inexcusably
careless for any of them to appear before this Court so barely prepared.
Atty. Falcis jeopardized the cause of his clients. Without even uttering a
word, he recklessly courted disfavor with this Court. His bearing and demeanor t
9
Id. at 362-363.
10
Soriano and Padilla v. Court ofAppeals, 416 Phil. 226, 255 (2001) [Per J. Pardo, First Division].
Notice of Resolution -4- G.R. No. 217910
July 3, 2018'
were a disservice to his clients and to the human rights advocacy he purports to
represent.
This Court does not insist on sartorial pomposity. It does not prescribe
immutable minutiae for physical appearance. Still, professional courtesy demands
that persons, especially lawyers, having business before courts, act with discretion
and manifest this discretion in their choice of apparel.
~ EDGAR'b:RICHftTA
~erk of Court l\
r (XU(~
' '